Posted on 08/21/2003 10:10:02 PM PDT by FairOpinion
Edited on 07/12/2004 3:40:35 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
But we are just celebrity-bots, you know, and can't have any valid reasons for believing Arnold is a conservative LOL
You guys are too much! LOL
Arnold is to the left of Snowe, Spector, Collins and Chaffey!
>>> ... you sound awfully dull and uninformed with this malignant garbage.
You guys are totally infatuated with Arnold. That's sick!
I've addressed every post you idiots have thrown at me and will continue to do so. What Arnold was doing at a Milton Freidman seminar, is anyones guess. I don't care and it isn't relevent to this debate.
You want me to agree with you about Arnold being something other then a liberal and it upsets you I won't go along, to get along. Tough!!!
BTW, Arnold remains, a liberal RINO!
A "Reagan Man" who has no clue who Milton Friedman is... but worse, won't take the time to click on the link provided. Pathetic.
Rush meant that Arnold handles his personal affairs and certain aspects of his life in a conservatibve fashion. But Arnold's public personna is quite different and Rush has said that on several occasions. Thats the way it is with most liberals.
I have no idea. Why do you want Bustamante to win?
I never said a seminar, dear, I said he gave the introduction to one of Milton Friedman's conservative economics videos in 1990... along with Reagan, your hero (and mine). It doesn't fit in with the lies you are claiming, though, so you completely ignore it.... very Clintonian.
Oh?
SAN FRANCISCO (WOMENSENEWS)--In a move to ensure that California women continue to have access to abortion services even if federal laws legalizing the practice are overturned, legislators have introduced a bill updating the state's abortion laws while expanding access to non-surgical abortion methods like Mifepristone, also known as RU-486 or the abortion pill...California is the only state where lawmakers are seeking to update their abortion laws. The proposed Reproductive Privacy Act would maintain women's right to abortion in the state by guaranteeing the right to privacy around reproductive-health decisions, including abortion under all circumstances.
http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/871/context/archive
No quote, naturally.
You folks are really showing how stupid you are tonight.
I don't care about Bustamonte and I never said I wanted him to win. That's something you fabricated in your own twisted mind. I support Tom McClintock. Not the liberal RINO, Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Agreed, except the main effort extends to getting rid of the Democrats in the governor's chair. Which includes therefore Bustamente. Which means therefore that 5% of the vote and 50:1 odds don't cut it.
Where and how exactly is McClintock going to multiply his support by a factor of five (5) or more? The simple answer is that he cannot. Conservative messages have sold well in referendums in California in the past, but that was in simple go/no go campaigns.
This recall just has too much "noise" in it for the conservative message to be heard. And thus, I think, the conservatives need to decide whether a governor with an (R) is what they want, or one with a (D). The first is a first step towards change in California, the second is the old politics.
I wouldn't worry about Arnold not being able to solve California's crisis. No one will be able to do much in time for the '04 elections, though some major actions, such as kicking butt in Sacramento will help. After all he will only have a year and will still be in the euphoria stage with the electorate and thus will still have some clout to help GW with.
The corollary to this is that Bustamente won't have enough time to fail much either. So he would have less negative impact on Demo candidates in '04.
So what do we want, one (R) in the hand now, or forego that and go with none now and hope to get maybe two later (R + real conservative)? The time to attack is now. The populace didn't respond last year, and no matter what you say the causes were, it still remains that the R's did not get their message across. Perhaps the R's need to move aside the "real" conservatives and let someone in who at least has a ghost of a chance to win. Even if to some his "R" is tainted with a trailer of "ino".
Frankly, I think we can get the two later with the (R) now, even by osmosis. If Arnold actually makes progress towards solving the California crisis, which I think he may and which will take some conservative actions no matter what, then we have gained. Don't be too quick to mark him down. We could do the same thing with GW right now, and for the same reasons. Does that mean we won't support GW's re-election bid in '04? I didn't think so.
In a race with only two or three candidates, such as the presidential elections next year, a conservative message might be able to tap into the demonstrated strength of certain conservative causes (e.g., no social handouts to illegal aliens, no on bilingual education, limiting affirmative action, defining marriage as one man-one woman, etc.). The problem will then be Bush himself and the stregth and bluntness of his message. Will he be a "Terminator" as he was after 911, or will he be a compassionate conservative as his father was and let the war-time support slip away?
No so much slip away as stay home from the polls, as they did in '96 and '98. What we need is both a motivated R base, plus other "conservatives" and "moderates" (you know, a D to the right of Ted Kennedy) who want something to tie to that hasn't yielded to the complaints of the left leaning antennae crowd.
Bush's cause was going in the toilet in '02 until he got out on the campaign trial with just such a message. Hopefully his "handlers", including his father, will go with a stronger message this time, calling a spade a spade, and a D a traitor, calling them to task for all the opposition and personal animosity towards him they's spent the last 4 years ventilating on.
In short, I think a R as governor of California will do Bush more good than a D. What a joke to have gone to all this trouble and get the electorate all riled up and not be willing to take the opportunity offered rather than to hold out for for religious purity.
Thank you :-)
Arnold has been a long-time fan of his and Dr. Friedman asked Arnold in 1990 to give the introduction. Would Dr. Friedman ask a fiscal liberal to promote such economic politicies? Would a fiscal liberal accept and do so? And doesn't it give you pause that Ronald Reagan was asked and agreed to also give such an introduction? And how can you still insist that Arnold is a fiscal liberal upon knowing this?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.